Utah Sports Ruckus: Jazz coaching match game; Jimmer's a Bulls bust

According to an article by Mike Sorensen of the Deseret News last Tuesday, Jazz general manager Dennis Lindsey was asked whether the team had identified any criteria or prospective candidates for the vacant head coaching position, and responded, “We literally have not spent one minute on that. We have not had one conversation in regards to other names or the criteria.”

Say what?

Interpretation for Corbin: “Hey Ty, we literally have never talked about what we want in a coach or who out there might do a better job than you – we just know we want you out; thanks for everything though and sorry about putting you in a no-win situation.”

Interpretation for Jazz fans, if true: “We don’t know what we’re doing but we enjoy our salaries so thanks for the support.”

It’s difficult to believe, however, that in reality no people in the Jazz’s organization have given any thought to what they want in a coach or who out there in the world might be a good candidate.

More than likely the true answer is something more like, “Of course we have all given those questions a lot of thought and have monitored the coaching landscape closely. We haven’t put anything official down on paper yet but we have all given it a lot of thought.”

Hopefully for Jazz fans that is the case. If not, and Lindsey was literally speaking the truth – wow.

What the Jazz organization ideally wants in a head coach is quite simple:

- Someone who knows how to win at the NBA level with some consistency.
- Someone who knows how to relate to and develop young players while at
the same time earning their respect.- Someone who can keep a positive
attitude amongst a young team while they endure some growing pains.- And
someone who consistently presents a positive image of the Jazz to the public and
who articulates well to the media.

Corbin accomplished some of
things, but obviously struggled with a few others. It was time to move on.

One of the most frustrating things of this scenario is that there was a group of
us fans who immediately felt and voiced our opinions that the Jazz had made a
big blunder in letting Hornacek leave for Phoenix soon after it was announced...
and for these reasons:

1. The Jazz were not getting better. A head
coaching change seemed imminent. 2. Jeff knows the x's and o's
of basketball as well as anyone else alive. 3. Jeff has a great knack of
relating to young players as well as veterans. Not all coaches can do that. 4. Jeff presents himself extremely well to the public and also communicates
well with the media.5. Jeff was a multiple time NBA All-Star who has his
jersey retired and hanging in the Jazz arena rafters.

Keeping Jeff
Hornacek and passing the head coach baton on to him seemed like such a
no-brainer to many of us at the time. And now obviously to Jazz management in
retrospect. Hopefully they can still find someone close to Jeff's caliber.

Jimmer has been shooting 3-pointers and foul shots at a higher percentage than
anyone currently on the Jazz roster. They haven't had anyone with his
outside shooting abilities since Korver left. For the small price they would
have to pay, he would be a great pick-up as a situational player for the Jazz.
His full NBA potential is still unknown. On top of that, love him or hate him,
he would definitely help sell more tickets. For those reasons, getting
him should be a no-brainer for Jazz management.

Alacrity "top of that, love him or hate him, he would definitely help sell
more tickets. "The Jazz already sell out most games without Jimmer,
but you have a solid point.How much money should the Jazz spend on Jimmer
to sell the last hundred seats?NBA minimum for a 5th year player is around
1 million. That seems kind of high...

As much as people want to say Jimmer is a bust, there really isn't much
statistical proof to say that. The only thing you can look at is minutes played,
and that statistic would say that his hype is all gone and he isn't worth
starting on any team in the league. I'm not sure what Chicago's goals
were in signing him. I would have thought he would have come in during the
playoffs and tried to spark some offense for them when they desperately needed
it.

But why sign him and then keep him on the roster for the
playoffs? Will they want to resign him at a vastly lower price, cut ties with
either Hinrich or Augustine so they can attempt to sign Carmelo? That gives them
Rose, Boozer, Noah, Gibson and possibly Hinrich/Butler/Snell and then Jimmer
coming off the bench or in situational periods to either backup Rose or used to
space the floor and let Rose do his work.

I just don't see an
organization like Chicago go to the trouble to sign Jimmer and then release him
without a plan.

In other words, your list is very
nice, but there just aren't that many guys out there who fit that bill. If
there were, they'd already have jobs.

The Jimmer situation in
Chicago was disappointing and a little wierd, but I have to see it as an
extended try-out. Even if you're in the "Jimmer's not a real NBA
player" camp, why did Chicago sign him? What do they know now that they
didn't know when he was with the Kings? It's not like they thought
they were getting a defensive stopper. What was the point? I see Augustin
wanting more money than they'll want to pay. Hinrich might be gone. I see
Jimmer backing up Rose and then falling into a starting role when Rose blows out
another knee.

Interesting bit of sarcasm about the Jazz not knowing what they want in a
coach.....Here's another point of view: The reason most coaches are fired
is because the owners see characteristics in them which they DO NOT want for
their team...If you're in a boat and it is on fire, you may not know
exactly how you want the situation to work out, but you do know that you DO NOT
want to stay on that boat with that fire!

Lindsey knows he DID NOT
want to continue to see the lack of defense exhibited by the Jazz.Lindsey
knows he DID NOT want to continue to see the lack of an offensive scheme by the
Jazz.Lindsey knows he DID NOT want to see players making the same mistakes
over and over again.Lindsey knows he DID NOT want to see young players
with potential vegetating on the bench.

THe problem is he hasn't "failed" at any team
really. He hasn't had the playing time to prove a failure. So that means
either one of two things: 1) He is SO bad he can't even get minutes and
playing time or 2) The teams that he has played on have a different system and
don't have a need for him at this particular time.

In response
to the first point, I can't believe that is correct. When you look at the
product the Jazz, Bucks, 76ers, etc. put on the floor this year, I think Jimmer
is good enough to play significant minutes with those teams.

I am
inclined to go with option #2 (obviously I am a bit biased here) since there
isn't enough statistical evidence to support him "failing" on each
team he has been on. For a few weeks, he lead the league in 3pt% this year. He
did have a fantastic game with Chicago when he got some playing time.

I would like to think the Bulls have a plan for him, but only time will tell.

Robin, it's not that difficult to comphrehend. When Jimmer's gotten
minutes, especially this year, he's put up good numbers. This is
objectively undeniable. Sacramento has been a mess of an organization run with
questionable judgement for years. This is also objectively undeniable. Coming to
Chicago at the end of a year, with a rotation in place, playing for a coach who
is famously rigid with his rotations, Fredette was essentially an emergency
replacement for potential injuries or foul issues. Their coach said as much when
they signed him.

Tell you what; if Jimmer ever gets to play more
than, say, 15 minutes per game for a team for at least half a season and has
lousy shooting percentages (because shooting is what he's supposed to be
good at) I will let it go. There are many players with less to offer playing
bigger minutes. Jumping to "he has to fail with every team in the
league" is just sarcasm to avoid engaging in a discussion with any nuance.

Jimmer didn't get many minutes, but I'd hardly call his time with the
Bulls a "bust." Here are the stats: 56 minutes played, 32 points (41%
from 2-point field, 36% from 3), 5 rebounds, 3 assists and *most importantly!* a
PLUS 35 in +/-. To manage a +35 over the course of four wins and three losses
with only 56 minutes of floor time is impressive. His +/- was only negative
once. That's solid. The Bulls were a better team with him on the floor. His
next team will be getting a steal.